Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65291 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 79303 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2013 19:30:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 28 Jan 2013 19:30:46 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.143 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.143 smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.143] ([67.192.241.143:35190] helo=smtp143.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 7A/C9-28517-6E1D6015 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:30:46 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp24.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E62C61801E2; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:30:43 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp24.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 01FA61800C2; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:30:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <5106D1E3.6010102@sugarcrm.com> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:30:43 -0800 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anthony Ferrara CC: "internals@lists.php.net" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Purpose of voting From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > What should we be voting on when voting on an RFC: on the RFC proposed > feature, or on the patch itself? Either, or both, depending on the RFC and the intent of the author. Note that since there's rarely competing teams/patches on the same feature, accepting the RFC means also accepting the approach proposed by the team doing it, otherwise it's meaningless - if we accept the idea, but not implementation, what the use would be for the idea which has nobody to implement it? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227